DAVID LEON BASKIN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the admission of testimony regarding common drug dealer practices was harmless error under the circumstances.
[1] Testimony by a law enforcement officer regarding general criminal behavior observed in other cases is inadmissible as substantive proof of a defendant's guilt.
[2] A defendant has the right to be tried based on the evidence presented against them, not on the general characteristics or behavior of certain classes of criminals.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was convicted of selling crack cocaine. The investigating detective testified over objection that drug dealers often store drugs separately …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse General Criminal Behavior Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, J.
In this direct appeal, David Leon Baskin (appellant) appeals his conviction and the sentences imposed after a jury found him guilty of two counts of sale of crack cocaine, in violation of section 893.13(l)(a)l, Florida Statutes (1997). Appellant asserts as error that the investigating detective was permitted to testify over defense objection that it is not uncommon for drug dealers to keep their drugs at a separate location, rather than carrying such contraband on their respective persons. We affirm, because the error was harmless under the circumstances of this case.
As appellant’s counsel correctly asserts, the law is well settled that general criminal behavior testimony based upon a law enforcement officer’s observations and experience in the investigation of other cases is inadmissible as substantive proof of a defendant’s guilt, because a defendant has a right to be tried based on the evidence against him or her, not on the characteristics or general behavior of certain classes of criminals in general. See, e.g., Dean v. State, 690 So. 2d 720, 723 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Lowder v. State, 589 So. 2d 933, 935 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), dismissed, 598 So. 2d 78 (Fla.1992).
The controlling evidentiary issue in this case was the credibility of the undercover investigating officer who testified that appellant sold crack cocaine to him on two occasions. Appellant testified in his own behalf, denying that he sold crack cocaine to the detective. In defense, appellant suggested the detective might have confused appellant with two other individuals similar to him in appearance.
Whether drug dealers keep the substance on their persons during transactions or store it in a separate location, was not an issue in this case, and had no bearing on the defense of confused identity. Under both the rule pronounced in State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986), and pursuant to section 924.051(7), Florida Statutes, the error was harmless. See also Dunning v. State, 695 So. 2d 473, 474 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
AFFIRMED.
BOOTH and WEBSTER, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. State, 89 So. 3d 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…(2) a defendant’s presence in a high crime area. The relied upon cases stand for the proposition that a defendant has the right to be tried on the [*1022] evidence against him and not on a theory of guilt by association. See, e.g., Baskin v. State, 732 So. 2d 1179, 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (“[GJeneral criminal behavior testimony based upon a law enforcement officer’s observations and experience in the investigation of other cases is inadmissible as substantive proof of a defendant’s guilt, because a defendant…
-
Lewis v. State, 754 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…ns. A defendant is entitled to be tried on the evidence in his or her particular case, rather than on characterizations or testimony about generalized patterns of behavior. See Hamilton v. State, 734 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Baskin v. State, 732 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Given the particular factual context of this case, we reject the State’s position that any error in the admission of this testimony is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, Appellant contends that the trial court erred i…
-
Henderson v. State, 789 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…call, but ultimately denied the motion for mistrial. It is this ruling that Henderson now appeals. We begin by noting that the State has essentially conceded that Baca’s comment was improper. This concession is correct. See, e.g., Baskin v. State, 732 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (holding that testimony concerning general criminal behavior [*1018] based on a law enforcement officer’s experience and investigation in other cases is inadmissible); Florio v. State, 554 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (noting t…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Lowder v. State, 589 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Dean v. State, 690 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Dunning v. State, 695 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)